Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Oct 1993

Vol. 434 No. 2

International Development Association (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution of £13 million by the Irish Government to the Tenth Replenishment of the Resources of the International Development Association.

The International Development Association, or IDA, is an affiliate of the World Bank. It was established in 1960 and complements the work of the bank by lending to the poorer developing countries on much more favourable terms than are possible for the bank itself. Like the World Bank, IDA provides assistance to high priority investment projects and general sectoral economic adjustment programmes in member countries. Basically IDA is different from the World Bank in two ways — how it obtains its funds and how it lends out its funds.

The World Bank operates more like a commercial bank. It raises most of its funds by borrowing on the world's capital markets and on-lends these funds, with a small mark-up to cover expenses, to a wide range of developing countries. IDA, on the other hand, is mostly funded by regular replenishments, or grant contributions, from its richer member countries. These resources need to be replenished from time to time, normally at three year intervals. The IDA 10 negotiations were completed in late 1992 and this replenishment will cover the period from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996. Since its inception in 1960, IDA has been a major source of highly concessional financing for the poorest countries. Typically IDA loans are for 35 to 40 years duration. They have a ten-year grace period before repayment begins. IDA does not charge interest — only a service charge of less than 1 per cent of the outstanding balance.

IDA's role is one which finds great support from Ireland. Its focus of attention is firmly on the poorest developing countries. This is directly in line with a general Irish overseas aid priority, namely to provide assistance to poorer developing countries. IDA plays a key role in the economic and social development of these countries. Its purpose is not to provide short term humanitarian aid, but to create the conditions in which the countries can permanently raise the living standards of their people. Its lending programmes are primarily aimed at providing resources for investment projects that are not only essential for the economic and social development of the borrowing country, but also technically and economically sound. IDA also lends for more comprehensive economic programmes which facilitate the long term growth of the economy, or of a particular sector. In recent years it has increasingly provided financial aid to enable poor countries to introduce and implement urgent economic policy reforms and structural adjustments.

As I mentioned earlier, only the very poorest countries can benefit from IDA lending. Generally, only countries which have a per capita income of $765 or less in 1991 dollars are eligible for IDA loans. Exceptions are maintained for small island economies and for temporary assistance to a category of countries which have per capita incomes about the cut-off level but are not creditworthy for World Bank lending. As a result IDA lending is generally concentrated in the poorer, densely populated countries of Asia and the least developed areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Today some 70 countries are eligible for IDA funding. Each year, IDA finances about $6.5 billion in new lending to these countries. Over IDA has supported over 1,100 projects which in turn support overall investments of some $83 billion. IDA's activities span the globe from China to Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, most of sub-Saharan Africa and some countries in Central and South America. Over 45 per cent of IDA's financial support goes to sub-Saharan Africa and the same percentage to Asia.

The donor resources made available to IDA during the Ninth Replenishment were scheduled to be fully committed by June 1993. In anticipation of this, the representatives of the donor Governments began substantive negotiations for the tenth replenishment, in January 1992. After five formal negotiating sessions, one of which was held in Dublin, the Deputies reached agreement in December 1992 on a replenishment of SDR 13 billion. However, IDA's lending power during the three-year period is now estimated at about SDR 16 billion or $22 billion eqivalent. This is higher than the earlier estimate of 15.5 billion SDR. The full extra 3 billion SDR is made up of repayment commitments from earlier IDA loans and the recent approved transfer of $375 million equivalent from the World Bank's surplus account. This amount could be added to by further transfers from the net income or profit of the World Bank.

During the negotiations it was agreed that IDA should continue to focus on three main objectives in order to support economic development in the poorest countries: poverty reduction, economic adjustment and growth and environmental protection and improvement. These objectives remain an accurate reflection of the key development challenges facing the poorest countries.

We expressed satisfaction with the recent sharpening of IDA's poverty-reduction focus, including provision to bank staff of comprehensive operational guidance on poverty issues and increases in the shares of IDA lending for poverty-targeted investments and social sector projects.

IDA attaches great importance to the completion of country poverty assessments for all major IDA recipients by the end of 1994 and IDA continues to emphasise social sector lending and poverty-targeted investments, that is, investments that disproportionately benefit the poor in particular or have specific mechanisms for identifying and reaching the poor. We expect that the higher shares of poverty-targeted investments and social sector lending which were achieved during IDA 9 would increase steadily during the IDA 10 period. IDA was asked to attach special importance to its efforts in two areas—women in development and family planning. IDA was also urged to expand its support for social services for women, including in particular education of girls.

As far as economic adjustment and growth were concerned, IDA's support for adjustment had been strengthened in a number of ways during the IDA 9 period. For example, social safety nets are increasingly being built into adjustment operations to help protect the poor and enhance the sustainability of the adjustment effort and lending allocations are increasingly being influenced by a country's economic performance.

The participating countries cited a number of aspects of adjustment to which particular attention might be given in the years ahead. IDA's executive directors were asked to keep track of how closely public expenditures reflected development priorities and of efforts that were being made to reduce non-development expenditures, including military expenditures, to the maximum extent feasible.

The continuing constraint to development prospects imposed by high levels of outstanding debt in many countries was noted. I spoke of this problem at the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Washington last week, when I called for a special debt relief package to be formulated for sub-Saharan Africa and the other poorest regions. What I asked for was a substantial write-off of debt at least in line with the so-called Trinidad terms. Deputies may be aware that these terms call for, among other things, the write-off of two-thirds of the debt of low-income developing countries. Without some new initiative to reduce debt, these countries have really no prospect of developing on the lines we demand of them.

In this context I acknowledge the contribution of the non-governmental organisations, in highlighting the impact of excessive debt. Several of these agencies have an impressive track record in working to ease the lot of the poorest. We should respect their considered opinion which is based on experience in the field.

In the area of environmental protection and improvement, the rapid evolution of IDA's role in supporting environmental sustainability was noted. This is an objective close to us in Ireland and in this context I welcome, in particular, the IDA's intention to increase involvement by non-governmental organisations in the design and implementation of projects. I know this will be particularly welcomed by our non-governmental organisations such as Concern, Trócaire, Goal, the Irish Red Cross and Gorta. We are extremely proud of the efforts of these groups and the people working for them in the developing world. I am certain that greater consultation between IDA personnel and these groups will enhance the effectiveness of the IDA's projects and programmes.

During the negotiations the representatives of donor states reviewed three criteria for allocating funds, namely, per capita income, performance and creditworthiness.

It was agreed that the operational cutoff of per capita income be left at the same real level as in IDA 9 — $765 or less, in 1991 dollars. In addition, the IDA was asked to reduce its allocations to more creditworthy countries and we recommended that assistance to these countries be directed primarily to poverty-focused activities or those that promote environmental sustainability. It was also agreed that resources allocated to sub-Saharan Africa would, subject to performance, be maintained at between 45 per cent and 50 per cent of the total. We also attach great weight to the timely completion and high quality of national environmental action plans that are prepared, with IDA assistance, by all active borrowers.

The ways in which the IDA allocates its resources by country and by sector is a key determinant of the effective implementation of its policies. The negotiators reaffirmed that the IDA should focus its efforts on those countries that have demonstrated their commitment to the IDA's three main objectives, that access to IDA resources should be based on annual assessments of performance, with allocations related to the strength of countries' commitments to the three main objectives, and that in countries where performance is lax, lending should be limited to the minimum needed to maintain the policy dialogue.

I want to return now to the funding of IDA 10 and Ireland's share of that funding. The size of the tenth replenishment was the subject of extensive discussions during the negotiations, as were the relative contributions of the different member countries. I had the pleasure of meeting many of the negotiators and World Bank or IDA personnel when Ireland hosted one of the negotiating sessions in Dublin Castle in July 1992. I was struck by the great support for IDA among almost all the richer nations. Nevertheless the negotiations took place against a backdrop of widespread recessionary conditions. As a result and after protracted discussions, it was decided to recommend a replenishment of 13 billion SDRs — somewhat less than I would have hoped for. Agreeing the equitable distribution of this total among the donors again proved no easy task and the determination of relative shares is becoming increasingly difficult. However, this sum of almost 13 billion SDRs was only reached when a number of countries, including Ireland, pledged supplementary contributions, over and above their agreed share. Ireland's basic share of 0.11 per cent called for a contribution of 14.3 million SDRs. Subject to Dáil and Seanad approval I agreed to make a supplementary contribution of 1.1 million SDRs. This brings our total contribution to IDA 10 to 15.4 million SDRs. This amount translates into IR£13 million at an exchange rate already agreed. This is the amount for which I seek the approval of the House.

Ireland's membership of IDA was authorised by the International Development Association Act, 1960. Our contributions to the various replenishments have each been authorised by amendments to that Act. This Bill will enable us to make our contribution to IDA 10.

In recommending the Bill to the House I suggest that after the Second Stage debate we proceed with the other Stages as this would be helpful in the overall negotiations. This is a very short Bill but I will understand if it is not possible to do as I suggest.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Connor

We do not have any great problem with this Bill. We have always accepted that we must live up to our responsibilities in terms of overseas aid.

While this Bill does not come under overseas development assistance as operated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, it is an essential part of what we do to contribute towards development in Third World countries.

I welcome much of what the Minister told us in his speech. Every effort is being made to make the IDA more accountable and more recipient friendly. I am referring, for instance to small communities in Africa, Asia or perhaps Latin America. Although the Minister did not mention it, it was perhaps implied that the IDA in the distribution of its funds has not been too sensitive to the needs of small communities and to the real needs in third world countries. Incidentally, the leader or the Government in the recipient country has a full veto over IDA funding. Often IDA funds went towards prestige projects in the poorest countries where impoverishment is a way of life for 90 per cent of the population. Much IDA spending has been on inappropriate development. It would be far better to have spent money on community projects through the work of NGOs in Third World countries.

Assistance coming through the IDA never reaches many well deserving community projects and obviously that criticism was getting through in the negotiations. I sincerely hope that it will have an effect. From the information I have been given, I cannot be very hopeful. The bank said that it was setting up an inspection panel to hear complaints about the bank's projects but I doubt the capacity of that new panel to investigate complaints. I note that it will have a very small budget and only one permanent member of staff. There is also a procedure whereby the bank's management will first receive the panel's report and then recommend it to the bank's board along with the action to be taken. It would be far better if reports went directly to the board rather than to the managers who would have an interest in getting rid of comments critical of them.

The other difficulty is that the leader of the recipient country will have a full veto. A country like Zaire might be an applicant for funding under IDA and it will be up to President Mobuto to decide whether a project needs to be aided. President Mobuto seems to represent the worst type of despotism on that continent at present. I do not wish to be particularly critical of him as there are many like him in Africa.

It is a great pity that in the IDA 10 negotiations it was decided governments should have a veto. This brings me back to the point I made earlier, that an effort should be made to empower local communities. These funds will be directed at the poorest of the poor who in this case are the communities who live in awful conditions in African countries such as Uganda, Mozambique and Angola.

I tried to develop this theme — the appalling problems in Africa today — when we discussed the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs last July prior to the summer recess. I do not think it has dawned on us just how bad things are. Are we aware of the the extent to which the position has deteriorated during the past decade? According to the best statistics, ten years ago approximately 100 millon people in Africa where living in poverty. In 1993 this figure has risen to 200 million. Because of disease these people survive half their natural life span. Indeed, 50 per cent of children in some areas die before they reach the age of one. The figures are frightening.

If one reads the report, "The State of the World's Children", published annually by UNICEF, one will see that the key indicators are infant mortality rates and access to water, education and vaccinations for diseases such as polio and leprosy. If one compares recent reports with those published ten years ago one will find that, instead of the position improving, it is deteriorating. Infant mortality rates in Africa are now the highest in the world.

It has been predicted that by the end of this century if present trends continue, the number of people in Africa living in poverty will increase to 300 million. It is up to the developed world to stretch out a hand and offer assistance to this underdeveloped part of the world.

The decline in economic conditions in African countries can be traced back to their relationship with the developed world. The trade terms offered to these countries are not fair. While IDA lending accounts for only a small fraction of overall lending and is directed at very poor countries, the conditions attached to IMF and World Bank lending place a heavy burden on many countries. The IDA insisted that Zambia, which is trying to rebuild a true democracy having had a benevolent dictatorship for 20 years, provide social services, including the provision of milk for primary school children in a country where possibly 50 per cent of people receive an education and where 60 per cent of girls receive none. This is one of the poorest countries in the world, yet this is the way it is being treated by a world institution which is supposed to be trying to secure development in poor countries.

I understand that all developed countries are represented at the World Bank. I often wonder what is said on our behalf. I welcome what the Minister had to say about the recent meeting of the World Bank. He confirmed that, in line with the request I made at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, this country would support the Trinidad Terms rather than the so-called Enhanced Toronto Terms. It is a pity that he did not indicate the response. Perhaps no decision was made. The Minister might indicate when replying to the debate what he thinks the response will be. What support did he receive from his fellow directors or members of the World Bank? I do not know if Ministers for Finance consider themselves to be directors of the World Bank.

Mr. Dukes

Governors.

Mr. Connor

Thank you, Deputy. I sincerely hope that his representations were accompanied by representations from the more powerful governors of the World Bank.

I am looking at figures which indicate that the amount spent on debt servicing by the African Continent is four times greater than the amount spent on health and education. That is the reason the Trinidad Terms are so important. In determining the approach they should adopt to lending to poor countries the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have to take into account the fact that economic conditions in Africa are getting worse. There has been some economic growth in Asia, particularly in the Far East and the Pacific ring, but there is crushing poverty in the Philippines, for example.

In Africa the figures are appalling. Someone said to me recently that gross output in Africa, excluding South Africa, is lower than in the Benelux countries. Six hundred million people are living in Africa as compared with 25 million or fewer in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. This gives some idea of how bad the position is. It has been deteriorating during the past decade. Political upheavel and the actions of despots have led to economic decline. In addition there was Cold War rivalry. The great powers fought a war by proxy in Angola and Mozambique. The Cuban forces fought on the side of the MPLA Government in Angola while millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in American aid were filtered through to UNITA through South Africa. This did not do the Soviet Union or the United States of America any good but it had an appalling effect on that unfortunate country. Consider the total dismemberment of Mozambique. Thankfully there is now a ceasefire in that poor country and I hope elections will be held there. However, the problems they face are absolutely mind-boggling. The first question a Government coming to office in any of those countries has to ask is where it should start. So much of the destruction of their economy and their physical assets is directly related to the actions of the great powers fighting their Cold War rivalries in the last 20 years. We, as an ex-colonial country with a nightmare past, have a voice to be listened to in this area because we can speak with great moral authority. We often do not take advantage of that influence.

There was never a better opportunity for doing something for poor countries. The Cold War is over. The exploitation by the great powers and various factions that happened to fall out with each other in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda and elsewhere has stopped. Millions of dollars were given in military assistance to despots by all sides. If we could only pour in similar sums to fund basic humanitarian needs like health, education and all the other things rather than supplying them with funds for their own destruction, we could achieve something. If one goes to some of these African countries like Liberia, Angola or Mozambique one is very likely to meet a youngster on the street carrying an AK47 or its American equivalent. That is part of the legacy that we have left those people. They have no legacy of development, no legacy worth talking about of greater education, better sanitation, better health, etc. We should be doing everything in our power to raise our voice on these matters.

The recently published World Bank report said: "In relation to IDA10, IDA funds will be stretched because nine extra countries became recipients during IDA9". It illustrates the point I am making. There were nine more countries than there were under IDA8 which is the trend I have been talking about, that impoverishment is like the desert; it is spreading. The report goes on to say:

The IDA10 donors therefore agreed that the more creditworthy recipients that were also able to borrow from the World Bank ("blend countries") should rely more on the Bank. IDA funds for these countries will be directed primarily to reducing poverty or promoting environmental sustainability. While funding from the Bank and IDA taken together will be more expensive for these countries, the agreement will conserve IDA resources. This will accommodate new recipients without seriously jeopardising funding for countries without alternative financing. The share of IDA funding for blend countries is being reduced, therefore, from 40 per cent in IDA9 to 30-35 per cent in IDA10. The regional pattern of IDA10 blending is expected to be broadly similar to IDA9.

This is important and it is a pity that the Minister did not mention it. It is a fund that has grown no larger but which has to be divided between many more countries. It is a great pity that we could not have found a little more money to improve our overseas development assistance, which is little more than one third of the target allocated for overseas development assistance. We have the unenviable distinction of being second from the bottom of the league, the USA being at the bottom. It is not a very creditable position in which to find ourselves. I know resources are scarce but it would have been more satisfactory if we could have found more resources to make available through this mechanism of the IDA. While it is not generally regarded as overseas development aid this particular fund-loan, if it were called just that, might make our figures in terms of what we give and what we have to achieve look a good deal more respectable.

Many more countries are being thrown back on the World Bank and the IMF because there is less money to go around from IDA funds. There is no point in telling the Zambians, the Ugandans and the Liberians to go to the IMF for their funds, to be ready to pay their rate of interest and to take on board the economic adjustments upon which the IMF will insist. Last week I was in South Africa and the papers were writing welcomingly about the fact that the World Bank and the IMF have decided to lend to South Africa. That was welcomed by ANC representatives as well as the representatives of the Government. All shades of political opinion welcomed it. However, South Africa is quite different because it enjoys a level of development far above anywhere else in Africa and if there were to be an even distribution of the wealth in South Africa, the average black South African would be much better off than most of his counterparts in any other country. In fact, he would reach a level of wealth that would, no doubt, be very close to our own. I condemn the apartheid regime which is effectively dead, thank God. Nevertheless, the black population of South Africa is, relatively speaking, a lot better off than the populations of so many other countries surrounding them. A country like South Africa would be in a better position to undertake the economic policy adjustments insisted upon by the IDA or the World Bank when they lend.

This is something about which we should raise our voices more forcefully and I congratulate the Minister on foot of the Trinidad Terms worked out in Washington a week ago. However, they do not go far enough. We must bear in mind what is happening on the continent of Africa. Until we see a turnaround in the economic conditions, we cannot be satisfied with our own actions. So many countries are doing what we are asking them to do, taking on board what is essentially western thought and instituting parliamentary democracies. It is not always easy for African countries where there are different traditions and different cultures. We insist on telling them how good these things are — I would certainly tell them that — but we must be careful when we do so. If we tell them that they should become full democratic societies we should remember that it has a price and, if this is important to us, we should be willing to pay part of that price. We cannot simply lecture these countries about the quality of their democratic system. We all want to see the end of people like Mobutu and others who still stalk so much of Africa and other parts of the world. However, there is no point in telling a government that it should stop giving free milk to children in primary schools, stop subsidies to schools, cut back on primary health care——

An Ceann Comhairle

Some four minutes now remain of the time available to the Deputy.

Mr. Connor

Nothing could be more inimical to the desire that these countries should become democratic. One cannot expect democracy to flourish in such circumstances. When a government tries to make adjustments which impose hardship on the general population naturally the voice of the demagogue will say that the government is bowing to the western powers with their banking systems, loans, etc., and that that is what is increasing poverty.

Fine Gael welcomes this Bill, which is a small gesture, and we will not do anything to impede its progress through the House. I hope that some of the points I made will be borne in mind by the Minister. We have a moral authority on these issues and we should use it. Unfortunately, we are not exercising this moral authority at present to anything like its full potential.

Mr. Cox

This legislation is straightforward and will not take up an excessive amount of my time. Nevertheless, I wish to raise some points. This is essentially technical legislation which requires our approval to enable us to continue with our public policy and to meet our international obligations. In that context my party supports the Bill and will facilitate its early and easy passage through this House.

Some people may quibble about Ireland's record in overseas development aid. Indeed there is much one could say in that regard. I accept the technical point that this Bill does not really deal with that domain. However, it deals with an area closely related to it. This Bill reminds me of the curious remark by the Taoiseach this afternoon during Quesion Time when he asked anyone in the House who did not want peace to say so. The logical equivalent to that is: "let anyone who does not want truth, youth, beauty, motherhood, apple pie and money for the International Development Association say so now". Of course we are for all these things, which are good, right, proper, ethical and moral.

Mr. Dukes

Will this be promotion of the week?

Mr. Cox

This is why we agree with this legislation.

I should like to refer specifically to a point made by Deputy Connor about the reference in the Minister's speech to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the indebtedness of various countries. I am sure my colleagues will be aware — the Minister must be — of a fairly substantial survey on Third World finance published in The Economist of 25 September. That survey contains some good news and some extremely disturbing news. The good news is that some of the countries which were locked into a terrible cycle of debt — the survey describes it as a “debtors prison”— have, through relatively sound and conventional economic management techniques, found the key to getting out of that prison. I am referring in particular to some of the larger Latin American countries which appear to be turning the corner in this respect. However, there remains a hard core, particularly but not exclusively, of sub-Saharan African countries whose debt problem is so profound that I should like the Minister in his reply to tell us what other countries said about his suggestion at the recent meeting of the World Bank.

I wish to put some of the figures given in the survey on the record of the House. For example, in 1991 the level of debt, expressed as a proportion of exports, for Burundi was 758.9 per cent. This meant that in 1991 the amount of debt redemption being sent out of that country was eight times the value of its exports. The figures given in the list are disturbing — for example, the ratio for Ethiopia is 635 per cent; the ratio for Guinea-Bissau is an extraordinary 3,086 per cent and the ratio for Mozambique is 1,287 per cent. A debt problem of that magnitude in terms of inability to pay is so profound that it should be treated with the utmost urgency by the international community. The scale of that debt is so deep and great that those economies do not have the ability to follow the more conventional road which has been trodden with success by many Latin American countries.

Will the Minister outline the process being set in motion to deal with this problem? No one presumes that one swallow makes a summer or that one speech or one intervention creates a policy on the spot but I should like to know the process now engaging the mind of the World Bank and the IMF in terms of dealing with this issue.

Another point which needs to be made when one is talking about aid — this point has been well made — is that much development aid has gone into flagship projects and others which may well do a lot for the ego of some of those promoting them but which do much less for the areas in which they are located. In that regard it is important in any debate on aid to look at its quantity and quality in terms of spending and its ultimate effect on growth. A lesson must be learned from the debt crisis of the 1980s, particularly its impact on the Latin American countries. The ability of those countries to attract private capital flows has been a profoundly important qualitative turning point in terms of their capacity to sustain improvements in their economies.

The three conditions for giving IDA aid are poverty reduction, economic adjustment leading to economic growth and environment protection. There are layers of potential meaning within those conditions. Policies which can induce a greater level of private capital inflow are, having surveyed what happened during the past decade, extremely important. A related issue arises in that context. I cited some of the statistics of the debt to export ratio of a number of countries as elucidated in a survey on Third World finance in The Economist.

There is also a question to be raised about exports and terms of trade and the degree of market access which the developed world affords, in terms of its ability to trade its way out of trouble, to underdeveloped countries. In respect of the present GATT Round, which is receiving so much attention, the muscle flexing between the European Community and the United States, the general blocs that operate as between the Cairns group, the United States and the EC, and the Japanese and Eastern interests generally defined in trade bloc terms, the missing partners are some of the very countries we are talking about. They do not fit into that equation. It is not that they do not necessarily belong to GATT but they are simply the missing part of the equation in terms of concerns. We are now, I hope, about to have a successful conclusion to the GATT round but its essential concerns are the concerns of the developed countries. The missing partners are the poorest of the poor in terms of the trade debate and those missing partners, to use the phrase of The Economist survey, are the ones who remain locked in the debtors' prison.

This is technical, enabling legislation. My party supports it but it represents merely a drop in the ocean in terms of the nature of the contribution that can be made. In respect of Ireland's official development assistance record, which is a parallel process, the Minister will be aware that this was an issue that was dear to my heart on more than one occasion when we sought to negotiate improvements and none came about. I welcome the commitment in the Programme for Government to a progressive improvement in the GNP share which we give to overseas development aid. It is consistent with the medium term multi-annual approach which we had advocated when in Government. In our engagement with poorer countries, notwithstanding the depth of our unemployment crisis, the problems of recession and the constraints on public expenditure, we need to recognise that we have a profound obligation to set more funds aside over time. We have a particular contribution to make in the area of people skills because many of the administrations in the recipient countries have deficiencies in that area. In that context, we should be investing much more in administrative terms to increase the level of skills and make people more capable when they draw down the Special Drawing Rights from agencies such as the IDA. They must obtain the best value for the money they are investing.

I signalled earlier that we will support this Bill and acknowledge it simply as enabling legislation. It signals an interest in this House in a more profound discussion on overseas aid policy in general, of which this multilateralism is a related but separate part.

Proinsias De Rossa

I, too, welcome the Bill and have no objection to the request that all stages should be taken today.

As we approach the end of the twentieth century one in every five people on this planet — almost 1,000 million — continue to live in absolute poverty, while one million children under the age of five die every month in the developing world from hunger, malnutrition and preventable disease. Approximately 20 children under five die every minute from causes which we in the developed world have developed means to deal with.

In Africa alone, tens of millions of people face the threat of starvation. When famine is brought under control in one African country, it seems inevitably to strike another. Disease in Latin America continues to take its terrible toll, largely due to a lack of basic hygiene, health and sanitary facilities. The poor areas of the developing world bear the brunt of the globe's natural disasters — flooding in Bangladesh, earthquakes in India, hurricanes in Central America — and the impact is so catastrophic and remedial measures hampered precisely because of the lack of basic infrastructure.

Developing countries are crippled also by international debt, the repayments of which divert money from investment in such vital areas as health and education. Tackling issues such as illiteracy and AIDS prevention is made almost impossible in these cases. Recent figures show that in 95 of the poorest countries, 25 per cent more was spent on servicing international debt than on education and health services combined.

Throughout much of the developing world scarce resources are being wasted on ethnic and regional conflicts with arms supplied by the developed world. There are currently more than 50 civil wars being fought, most — but not all — in the developing world. Undemocratic regimes enslave and exploit their populations while the developed countries turn a blind eye and make fortunes from supplying the weapons used to do just that. Almost 50 years after the establishment of the United Nations it seems that the gap between the developed and the developing world is widening. Against this dismal background there is a greater need than ever for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the developed world not only to work to increase the level of development aid but also to ensure that the money and the expertise is used in the most effective way possible.

Democratic Left welcomes this Bill to provide for the next three-year contribution by this country to the International Development Association, although it must be said that the increased commitment at £13 million represents a very modest increase of just £260,000 over the Ninth Replenishment. It represents an increase of approximately 2 per cent — well below the current rate of inflation here and, more importantly, very much below the rate of inflation in the beneficiary countries.

The International Development Association is the "soft loan" arm of the World Bank. The mission of the IDA is to distribute to severly impoverised countries "no interest" loans with extended repayment periods of 30 to 40 years. Typically, recipient countries have a per capita GNP not exceeding $700 and the focus has been on countries of sub-Saharan Africa and low income Asia. The fund was established to direct attention and provide funds for those countries which cannot afford to borrow from the World Bank's established programmes. The IDA is funded by grant contributions from its member countries and from repayments of past IDA credits.

It is without doubt a useful source of badly needed long term finance for the developing world, but there are a number of problems associated with the application of IDA funds. Development agencies such as Trócaire have monitored the funding policies of the World Bank and have been critical of its reluctance to open itself up to independent scrutiny.

The people living in areas affected by World Bank or IDA-financed projects have little idea in advance of what is being planned for them. The World Bank has taken some steps to open up the decision-making process but a number of governments continue to exercise a veto over what information will be disseminated. Trocaire claims that governments use this veto to keep their populations uniformed and powerless. On the other hand, the World Bank claims that it engages in government to government activity and thus cannot impose restrictions. Trócaire contends that this is a specious argument and that the World Bank imposes restrictions and requirements on funding of projects on a regular basis. We strongly believe that public disclosure to citizens and monitoring groups should be a fundamental requirement of recipient countries. While money provided through the International Development Association is valuable in the longer term, the key to solving the economic problems of the developing countries lies in debt reduction. As I pointed out earlier, current investment is being crowded out by the overwhelming burden of debt repayments.

I welcome the support for the Trinidad Terms expressed by the Minister of Finance at the recent annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This matter was raised in advance of that meeting at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs, which adopted a motion calling on the Minister to press for the adoption by the International Monetary Fund of the Trinidad terms seeking to write off two-thirds of outstanding debts, the reduction in toto to be applied with immediate effect, the cost of reduction to be additional to existing aid budgets, repayment periods to be extended to 25 years, no interest payments over the first five years, such interest to be added to outstanding capital and, most importantly, that commercial banks be urged to make comparable reductions. I welcome the fact that the Minister availed of the opportunity presented at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund to advance a strong case — that is from the reports I read in The Irish Times— in support of those terms.

Current negotiations between poor countries and their creditors generally involve writing off 50 per cent of the debt. Clearly that is inadequate, given the appalling debt on the part of many countries that entered into such debt in the seventies. I urge the Minister to continue to support the call for the implementation of the Trinidad terms and to campaign strongly for this improvement.

I want to refer now to the question of the increase in our aid as a proportion of our GNP. I am on record as warmly welcoming the Government decision to increase that aid on an incremental basis over a given period of years. However, we remain slow in reaching the recommended UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. I calculate that we shall reach approximately half that amount by 1997 on the basis of what the Government proposes. I do not want that criticism to detract in any way from the fact that I welcome the Government decision to move in that direction.

There is another element of this. Concentration on the financial contribution of this country to developing countries — either by way of multilateral organisations or bilateral projects which we ourselves undertake through non-governmental organisations — is mistaken if we ignore the effects trade can have on the well-being of Third World countries. There is very little connection between our foreign policy stances within the EC and the current GATT negotiations and the effect of those stances on the well-being of Third World countries. Trade is essential if those countries are to establish a worth-while living standard for their people. Aid alone can be only a means of assisting them over an initial period in establishing a viable economy and infrastructure services such as health, education and sanitary services. If we do not take a more courageous stance with regard to trade — in particular opening up the EC in relation to trade — then no matter how much voluntary money or Government money is spent in aiding those countries, it will be merely like dropping it into a bottomless well. I realise that adopting a more courageous stance on trade could have a bad effect on home industry. However, studies have shown that, if the matter is dealt with honestly and assistance given, the net effect can be beneficial to Ireland given our links with the Third World and our record in assisting developments there.

That is an area that has not yet been debated here to any significant extent. It is my hope that the sub-committee of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs will have deliberations on trade at an early date, since that constitutes the answer to many of the problems from which people in the Third World suffer.

Mr. E. Ryan

I welcome this Bill and the Minister's introductory remarks. It is timely that this matter should be debated, particularly since Deputies Connor, Gallagher, Noonan and I returned last weekend from a visit to South Africa, where we saw the poverty problem and the need for aid. The extent of the problem there is not as great as in other areas of Africa.

With our historical background we are in a better position than most other western countries to understand the social and economic needs of many of these developing countries. Colonisation and famine have led to many of the problems obtaining in the third world today. Our people have a certain affinity with those in poorer countries who are still experiencing poverty and hunger.

The people who will benefit from the moneys about which we speak are located many thousands of miles from us, living in the most appalling conditions of poverty, hunger, disease and so on, many instances of which are portrayed regularly on our television screens. Television has been a very positive element in bringing these pictures into our homes each evening, but after some time, one may tend to become almost numb when one becomes used to viewing pictures from the third world and the appalling poverty and hunger that prevail there. It becomes easy for us to forget, or not fully realise the extent of these problems. It is only when one visits these countries and sees conditions first hand that one realises how real they are and how important it is for countries like ours and other richer countries to contribute regularly and properly to these third world countries.

We as a country benefit enormously from EC Structural Funds. Next week our Government will publish its national plan dealing with the Structural Funds allocated to us. We all know how difficult it is to properly spend money. The Government has put much work into ensuring the maximum benefits from that money. We have the infrastructure and expertise, many good politicians and economists who will see how the money can best be spent, although I have no doubt some members of the Opposition and economists will not agree with the way the money is allocated.

There is a problem with the way money from abroad is spent. The money we are talking about today goes to the poorest countries in the world, many of them in sub-Saharan Africa. In the last debate on this matter Deputy Owen said there was a hole in the bucket. That sums up the position, and unfortunately the hole is getting bigger and bigger. One only has to look at the Oxfam report received by members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to realise that this is so. That report refers to the debt crisis in Africa and states:

Without economic recovery more than 300 million people, half the region's population, will be living in poverty by the end of the decade.

Infant mortality rates in Africa are the highest in the world. The region spends four times more on debt servicing than it does on the health of its citizens.

UNICEF estimates that economic recession now claims the lives of 10,000 African children per day.

Between 1980 and 1992, sub-Saharan Africa's debt more than tripled to over $183 billion.

Despite its abject poverty, desperate shortages of foreign exchange and low investment, Africa disbursed $81.6 billion in debt payments between 1985 and 1992 alone.

This crushing debt burden now drains the region of over £10 billion annually.

Repayment of debt and interest on debt is draining the region of almost a quarter of its income from exports which should be invested in recovery and meeting basic human needs. Investment in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen by 9% for the last 10 years.

Between 1983 and 1990, the IMF received a net transfer of over $3 billion from Africa as net repayments from the region outstripped new loans. In practice, this means that development aid provided by Western governments is being diverted from investment in recovery in Africa to repayment of IMF loans.

A representative from Oxfam asked that the Minister, at the annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, support the Trinidad terms. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on doing that, as he clearly outlined in his speech. Though that was a small step, it was very important. I have no doubt the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will discuss this matter and we will be glad of the Minister's contribution.

We must get our priorities right. We are using this money to try to eliminate much of the poverty and problems in these countries. Unfortunately many of the conditions set down have led only to cutbacks in areas such as health and education. There is a vicious circle of poverty and debt and the problem is not being tackled. That is why the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs believes the Trinidad terms are very important. There must be a major write-off of much of the debt in order to get these countries back on an even keel. The money they receive and the money they earn from exports should be put into basic essentials so that they can build up their economies. As Deputy Cox said, it is important that they get private funding. If private funding is not available, as is the case in a number of Latin American countries, it is pointless throwing money at these countries.

Deputy Connor mentioned the problem of children. I will not repeat what he said but the report he mentioned makes very depressing reading. The article in The Economist quoted by Deputy Cox states that many private agencies believe that only 10 per cent of aid goes directly to the poor, to areas such as health care, literacy, clean water and family planning. Earlier in the year when I visited Malawi to monitor the referendum there was great concern among many people there that some countries were considering linking compulsory family planning with overseas aid. That would be a very dangerous step. Though it may seem a logical thing to do, there would be great reaction to it by many countries. If people wish to use family planning methods they should be educated to do so, but it should not be compulsory.

Another area that should be considered is the environment. In many countries there is a vicious circle whereby forests are cut down and used as firewood to cook food, thereby causing erosion and huge environmental problems.

Everybody supports the commitment to give aid to the poor. However, as stated in The Economist and the Oxfam Report, one recent World Bank loan to Mozambique, classed as poverty targeted, went to a foreign multinational for a project to grow cotton, for which it would be the monopoly buyer. The price it pays, say local Oxfam staff, is half that paid elsewhere. That is the wrong way to go about granting aid because it does not benefit the local economy. Unfortunately most aid is linked to purchases. An Oxfam report states that only five of the top donors link less than 50 per cent of their aid to purchases — in France the figure is 60 per cent; in Britain, 75 per cent and in Italy, 90 per cent. Virtually all of the food aid from America comes from the American farm surplus. This limits the buyer's choice and hampers local skills, rendering the operation inefficient. In the long term it makes no impact on the problem of these countries.

When I visited Malawi many people commented on the fact that there are so many consultants from rich countries — about 100,000 in all — carrying out work, much of which could be easily done by Africans themselves. That is a matter that should be considered.

The problems in these countries will not go away. If the Trinidad terms are implemented it will be a step towards breaking the vicious circle, but it will be only a start. When the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is set up and the chairperson appointed——

Mr. Connor

Who will the Deputy vote for?

Mr. Dukes

Canvassing will disqualify.

Mr. E. Ryan

My vote is vital. We should consider our overseas development programme to ensure more efficient spending of our money and that of other countries. Other Deputies who visited South Africa recently will agree that it has experienced huge problems and is at a crossroads. We are cautiously optimistic that the right decisions will be made and that South Africa will be a multi-racial democracy in the not too distant future. It is very important that they get help from outside to ensure that it works properly because the economic spin-off to other countries — Angola, Mozambique etc. — near South Africa would be enormous. If South Africa can work, many of the problems in that region can be tackled on a sound footing. It is very important that South Africa gets off to a good start and that the economy is moving, thus creating an enormous spin-off in the rest of Africa.

I welcome this Bill. Obviously, like everybody else, I am sure the Minister and members of the Government would like to see an even greater contribution being made. However, it is an increased contribution and in excess of what was requested. It will be welcomed by people living in atrocious conditions in many parts of the world.

Mr. Dukes

Like other Members of the House, Sir, I welcome this Bill. I am glad we are making provision of this kind. I had the pleasure of introducing a similar Bill but on that occasion I worried — and again today I worry — that we do not ask ourselves what lies behind this Bill. Deputy Connor and, indeed, others made the point that it is regrettable that our overall contribution to the international development effort is so small. There is more than that, I wonder if contributions of this kind — valuable as they are — do not represent conscience money on our part and if the making of provisions such as this is not a convenient way for us to overlook the deeper problems that lie behind what Deputies have been talking about. I do not think we give enough consideration to what lies behind all this. Do we ever ask ourselves what we want the IDA to do with this money? Do we ever ask ourselves if what the IDA is doing with it is appropriate for the purposes we have in mind? Deputy Ryan raised the question as to whether we are sure the money is spent properly. That is a perfectly fair question in the frame-work in which the IDA carries out its activities, but we should ask ourselves if the framework in which this money is spent is appropriate.

I will go back to what the Minister said to see if there is some guide for his thinking. The Minister pointed out that the IDA's lending programmes are, primarily, aimed at providing resources for investment projects that are not only essential for the economic and social development of the borrowing country, but also technically and economically sound. That is a perfectly sensible, sane and orthodox approach to the problem but should we not ask ourselves more often, Sir, if we are not imposing or sustaining a model of economic development or even a model of social development that is totally unsuitable for the countries to which we are directing this aid? In a real sense are we helping them to make the same mistakes in the economic, social and environment spheres that we made? Surely we should realise that the western world made a great many mistakes in the models of development chosen. We should ask ourselves occasionally whether it is just or proper to impose these on the rest of the world. Before any Members of the House take comfort from hearing me criticise the record of capitalist governments in how they approach aid, the record of what used to pass for socialism is ten times worse.

I was looking for an illustration of the worry I have and I remembered coming across a very neat illustration in a very worrying and extremely well written book entitled The End of Nature by Bill McKibben, of whom Members of the House may have heard. He made this reflection — I quote from page 186 of the book:

On the one hand, it is inconceivable — at least, this side of some genetically engineering cornucopia — that the peoples of the developing world can ever enjoy a standard of living like ours; there is simply not enough plastic and copper and so on to go round. If, by 2025, energy consumption in every country reached the current levels in the industrialised countries, it would mean a load five and a half times as big as the present one, which is already environmentally unsupportable. On the other hand, it is politically — and humanly — impossible to say that the poor should be condemned to live without while we live with.

In that simple thought there is a whole problem of the model of development we are pursuing. There are abundant examples of it. We talk about the successful economies of South East Asia to which some Members of this House have travelled fairly widely, and I regret to say more widely than I have.

Singapore is an extremely good example, in a very small area which is densely populated, of a rapidly rising standard of living. All those people want to attain the same kind of living standards and style that we in the western world have put up as their model. They want more cars, television sets, washing machines, air conditioning systems and so on. The same is happening in Taiwan and throughout Malasia. This model has been well established in Japan and in the People's Republic of China it is becoming the objective. They want to start doing the kinds of things we have been doing. They want to pollute their environment in the same way we pollute our environment. They want to ruin existing social structures in the same way that we have ruined so many here and so on. They want to put the same kind of pressures — demographically, socially and physically — on their populations as we have put on the western world. We have some impossible romantics who want to go away from that. They do not want to hear of moving away from it until they have seen and experienced the problems for themselves. We are imposing that kind of model of development on other parts of the world when we do not have the slightest doubt that we ourselves have gone too far and have done the wrong thing. Should we not think more often not about the amount of aid we give but about the systems we expect this aid to encourage and develop? The Minister went on to say that IDA lending is generally concentrated in the poorer, densely populated, countries of Asia and the least developed areas of sub-Saharan Africa. That is true. I wonder if we should congratulate ourselves on what we have done there or warn ourselves of the consequences of carrying on with the model we have adopted. The Minister gave a list of the beneficiary countries of aid such as China and India. I do not know if Deputies in the House read much of what is produced by the Chinese Government and sent to some of us here by the Chinese Embassy. In both China and India there are major investment projects — some of which, for all I know, may be helped by the IDA — designed not simply to build dams to harness major rivers but to rechannel major rivers, to change their course very substantially over a huge part of their length, to make a major change in the topography and the basic water engineering of whole river systems without any guarantee of the results either in physical terms or in terms of the fertility of the land around them, without reckoning the costs of social disruption and without looking at the costs imposed on society in those areas. A fight-back is beginning in some areas. They are doing those things because they see major projects of that kind as being the flagship projects of other countries that they should imitate or the kind of projects in which international development agencies encourage them to become involved.

In Bangladesh we see the causes of one of the major problems. The forests in that country are being removed, causing soil erosion. There is major flooding which gives rise to poverty. Poverty gives rise to people wanting more and more logging to take place so that they can be employed. The whole cycle starts again. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people are killed in periodic flash floods. Hundreds of thousands of others live in poverty and suffer from disease. One very much fears that the same pattern will be repeated over huge parts of the South American continent where this habit is very well rooted.

In sub-Saharan Africa, another area to which IDA money goes, the raising of staple foods in many countries is replaced by a mono culture cash crop in order to provide the funds needed for the kinds of developments in our countries which they wish to imitate, as well as to pay the interest on the debt they have already incurred in the development process. Mono culture gives rise to poverty, to unemployment and to the disappearance of the traditional ways of growing the staple food crops. This gives rise to the vicious circle of unemployment and dependence on mono cultures. The rest of the world gaily carries on with a GATT agreement which, if it pays any attention at all to the interests of the developing countries, does so only in terms of footnotes and pious aspirations. In the current GATT agreement there is not a single feature that will have any real benefit for the people who live in poverty and deprivation in sub-Saharan Africa, except an argument, as yet unresolved, about textiles. That is the only part of that agreement that could have any direct bearing on the interests of development, by which I mean proper social and economic development of the indigenous peoples of the countries we are supposed to be helping by passing this Bill.

We do not ask ourselves often enough what effects our development models will have. Neither do we ask ourselves if it is just on our part to impose the same prejudices and the same models, with which we are becoming disenchanted, on the people of those countries. Quite apart from the destruction of the rain forests, the other main problem in South America is that every so often somebody finds a new deposit of valuable minerals in the interior of Brazil. That is another turn of the screw for the destruction of populations and the replication of the problems that we spend much of our parliamentary time talking about: how to deal with poverty, with unemployment and emigration. I have to say that even when Governments get around to thinking about these problems there is not a great deal at evidence that they give them serious thought.

In June of last year, we debated the Estimate for the Department of the Environment and I took the opportunity to peruse what had emerged from the UN conference in Rio de Janeiro on the environment and development where surely the interests of developing countries should have been taken into account. Some of the resolution passed at that conference look very nice and fit in with some of the objectives the Minister mentioned in his speech today, but I wonder about the reality of it. The Minister referred to the three main objectives that the IDA would focus on. The first was poverty reduction; but as I see it there is not very much in the system that will do a great deal for poverty reduction. There is a great deal in the system that will widen poverty. The second was economic adjustment and growth, but the Rio conference failed to say anything meaningful about the democratic dimension of economic adjustment and growth and I am very much afraid that in this country, if nowhere else, we will be treated to treatises on the "Splendour of the Truth", oblivious of the fact that in very many countries of the world the splendour of the truth is very much dimmed by the horror of poverty. We failed to address this issue at Rio. However, an item in the Declaration states:

States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

I will not say any more about demography but there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to discuss it. I do not see the IDA doing anything in a concerted way to reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production. I am not saying that to criticise in any way the Minister or the efforts that are being made but simply to point out the poverty of thought on the real needs of developing countries. I do not think we should impose our mistakes on them.

Another part of the Declaration states:

States shall co-operate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the earth's ECO system. Developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

What is happening? It is the interests of companies from developed countries participating in the process of development that lead to the worst excesses and effects on the environment and eco systems of the developing countries. Which technologies place the greatest pressure on the resources of those countries? The answer is technologies that come from the donor countries of the IDA. Where do the financial resources come from which give rise to that kind of exploitation of the environment and of resources of those countries? They come from the same countries that are now contributing to the replenishment of the IDA. I do not see any consistency in policy.

From time to time we should ask ourselves sharply what we are doing through IDA systems. I am delighted to see the Trinidad principles being applied to the repayment of debt and the effort being made to ensure that the burden is not too heavy in the short term on these countries, but all of that is partly beside the point and some of it is a direct result of the fact that we have not given enough consideration to model of development we are pursuing in those countries. I do not know how it will be done but I would like to see at some stage — perhaps at the next annual general meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund — some proper consideration being given to how those financial instruments which we clearly need to help in the development effort can be squared with the kinds of ambitions set out in the the Declarations, empty as they have been proved to be, of the Rio conference. I hope we will see some real consideration given to the kind of development effort which will maintain the integrity of societies and populations in developing countries while giving them the opportunity to develop in accordance with a model that is sustainable for the whole world.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): The debate has been useful not only in addressing the Bill before us but in opening up the area of development co-operation to scrutiny. When we get the subcommittees off the ground, we hope to be able to address in more detail many of the issues that have been quite correctly raised this evening.

It is essential that we examine the model of development proposed — and imposed at times — for developing countries through the various agencies. Development is about growth plus change. Growth may be quantitative but change is about values and we must be clear about the values we hold in supporting such agencies. There is a risk that we could end up saying to developing countries that they should do as we say, but not as we do. We may be well aware of the shortcomings of our own model of development, but we run the risk of becoming colonialist or imperialist in another sense if we say to developing countries that they cannot follow the path of development we followed. We need to provide a means by which developing countries can clarify what they want to achieve through the development process and use agencies, such as the World Bank and the International Development Association, to facilitate them in that regard rather than imposing on them a model of development we consider correct.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill and the further evidence of this Government's determination to improve Ireland's contribution to overseas development by working in a planned way towards achieving the United Nations targets. I welcome the fact that previous speakers drew the Minister's attention to the continuing role of the international banking and finance agencies, especially the IMF, in perpetuating the debt crisis in developing countries, particularly in Africa. We have seen the damage that such structural adjustment programmes have done in many African countries. Indeed, the econmomic orthodoxy which dictated that shock therapy needed to be applied to developing economies caused serious social, economic and political casualties not only in the so-called Third World but also, as we have seen more recently, in the countries which are in transition from the former Soviet block. I noted with interest the reluctant admission by Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg on Monday last that the policies which we in the Western World are expecting the former Soviet bloc countries to implement so quickly may be causing and contributing to the erosion of what little democracy was starting to emerge in those countries. It is interesting to note that there was tacit agreement that the transition needed to be carried out in a much more gradual way, taking account of the position from which people in those countries are starting rather than looking, in the first instance, at the end or object of development. I welcome the Government's support of the Trinidad terms and ask the Minister to continue to use the voice of Ireland in the international arena to oppose any reinforcement of the debt crisis and to promote a form of development suitable to the conditions, resources and potential of each country.

The International Development Association, as an affiliate of the World Bank, is subject to the overall criticisms of that bank expressed by non-governmental agencies both here and elsewhere. It has been stated that the World Bank is not willing to open up sufficiently to independent scrutiny and I urge the Minister to press for greater accountability and transparency in its operations. A more important issue which needs to be addressed is the fact that in many cases World Bank activities in developing countries reinforce anti-democratic forces within those countries. In many cases they have assisted in keeping despots in power. Lending by the World Bank to Third World countries for infrastructural projects such as dams, roadways, electricity and water supply and so on must be infused also by a valued approach with the condition that measures towards democratisation and the creation of a civil society are implemented. In many instances we have seen the Government's of recipient countries continuing to exercise a veto on projects, not allowing citizens to have a say in the planning, implementation or evaluation of the projects imposed through World Bank operations. The sad fact is that a large number of unrepresentative Third World governments continue to use their veto to keep their populations uninformed and not empowered.

It is necessary that agencies such as the World Bank take greater account of the role of non-governmental agencies, not alone in creating economic development but in promoting social and democratic development. Deputies Connor and Ryan referred to the visit by Members of this House to South Africa last week where we discovered the EC is contributing to many non-governmental organisations in helping to bring about democracy in those countries. People in those countries fear that when a legitimate government is put in place the aid which has come from non-governmental organisations and contributed towards the democratisation of the country may be switched to governmental agencies, with the result that many of the agents of development and democratisation may be taken out of the picture.

Many non-governmental organisations have acknowledged that the IDA in recent years has used its funding to support democratisation and a civil society in, for example, Central America. It has also shown a greater willingness to work through the auspices of non-governmental organisations. However, I would ask the Minister to continue to keep a close eye on a number of issues in our dealings with, and participation in, the International Development Association which relate to the policy objectives of intervention. The World Bank should ensure that there is clear public participation in the use of IDA resources involving local communities so that the people of those communities can have a say in decisions and ivestments which affect their areas, their interests and the interests of their children. I am not satisfied that the overt decision by the IDA to include poverty reduction as one of its objectives in its next round of operations is sufficiently strong. We will be aware that is happening only if there is a shift in the pattern of lending to governments committed to and active in reducing policy. The area of environmental protection and avoiding environmental degradation needs to be examined closely. I am not talking about high level schemes, but about basics such as protecting the water supply which is the foundation of development in many underdeveloped countries.

We have an important role to play. We understand at first hand the results of colonial exploitation. We know the difficulties involved in trying to build and develop a country. We remain underdeveloped in EC terms, as is evident by the massive support given to us in the form of EC Structural And Cohesion Funds. Because of that experience we should have a greater understanding of the difficulties encountered by developing countries and we should use all our efforts in international fora to support such countries.

Dr. Upton

I, too, welcome the Bill, in particular because it will provide money to alleviate the burden of debt with which many developed countries are struggling. Money is badly needed to alleviate the debt problem in those countries. The resources which should be used to sustain development have been drained to repay loans. However, we should not get carried away by the significance of Ireland's contribution, a potential £13 million. We should reflect on the fact that in 1990 the extent of the debt in poor countries amounted to $1.3 trillion. That puts the matter in clear perspective; what we are contributing is a mere drop in the ocean. Nonetheless, a figure of £13 million is significant when one considers the use it could be put to here.

The significance of the problems in the developing countries was outlined by a number of previous speakers. Approximately 1.2 billion or a quarter of the population of the developing countries live in absolute poverty on incomes of less than $370. It is expected that this dreadful figure will increase. Approximately 13 to 18 million people, mainly children, die of hunger or hunger related conditions. There are approximately 0.5 billion people chronically undernourished in the world at present and that figure is increasing.

For many years the policy which underlined most of the aid contributed by western countries was clearly influenced by considerations which related to the sustaining and boosting of the interests of those countries involved in the cold war. The cold war is over and that has clear implications in relation to the development of new policies relating to the post-cold war conditions which now pertain. It is very important that Ireland should try to contribute to the development of these new policies because it offers a considerable level of new opportunities for us to develop and influence concepts in a way which would not have been possible if the cold war had continued.

I recently had the honour and privilege, with Deputy Connor and a number of other Members of this House, to attend a conference in Bonn where some of these issues were discussed. The conference concluded with the Bonn declaration which spoke in terms of conflicts relating to human security. It spoke in terms of relating these problems to a global level and put forward the idea that it is no longer possible or feasible to look at problems which now face the world in the context of a developed segment of the globe and an underdeveloped segment. Problems such as environmental degradation, ethnic conflicts, population growth, AIDS and other diseases, will not be limited or mainly centred in underdeveloped countries. They are global problems; they develop in one place and then spread to developed countries. For example, AIDS is believed to have originated in Africa, although some microbiologists and medical people might put forward arguments about that. It is now a major problem in western society. This is clearly related to the fact that its development in Africa was totally without control for a long time. Western society remained indifferent to the problems of Africa and it is now experiencing its own terrible problems as a result.

It is important that we should try as a country to contribute to the formulation of new concepts which are relevant to the realities of the post-cold war situation. It is also very important that we begin to broaden our attitudes to development and consider matters which relate to trade and the sharing and transfer of technology. That has happened to some extent but, as some of the earlier speakers said, there will also be serious considerations regarding sacrifices which will be necessary if we are to broaden those concepts to allow the Third World to develop.

A number of speakers mentioned that many of the programmes in the past were not very successful. We just gave money which went into the system and we had very little say in how that money should be used. It is appropriate that we should have more strings attached to the aid that we give and become much more vigorous in the extent to which we question the uses to which the aid is put. It is important that we have our say in the various international agencies in which we take part in relation to looking for far greater control of the way the money is spent. It is also necessary to recognise that there are limits to the control we can exercise on the use of the money because when we are dealing with tinpot dictators, juntas and despots we face terrible dilemmas. On the one hand we can adopt a stance of giving them nothing which, in many ways, would make the position of the unfortunate people even worse. Alternatively we give them money and they abuse it to boost their own egos or to build up military machines which have no function whatsoever in relation to development. They use it to build up status projects — big dams, high technology which is totally inappropriate and unsuitable and only relevant to a very small number of people there. The money would be used much better if it was spend on low grade technology and getting the basics right. Nonetheless when one tries to address the difficulties when giving money, the answers are perhaps not as easy as many of us would like to feel.

In conclusion I refer to the amount of aid given by this country. In many ways Ireland is in a curious position in that regard. Many European countries are puzzled by the attitudes we took over the years. They are puzzled by the fact that we have given such a small proportion of our gross domestic product to aid while at the same time the Irish public are very generous. They are puzzled by the fact that we are, as Deputy Connor said, second last on the OECD league table and yet a very large number of Irish aid workers are in Third World countries. In recent times, as far as the European and the developed countries are concerned, we have become even more puzzling because we took a decision, which we all welcomed, to increase our contribution to aid. We are doing that in the context of a world where most developing countries are either stalling on the amount of money they give or decreasing it. We have laid down a programme whereby the amount we given will continue to increase for a considerable period. In this matter at least this country is truly counter cyclical. The position which has been agreed by all sides of the House is to be very much welcomed. We are setting a good example in this regard to our international colleagues.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is immensely important although it seems a very minor piece of legislation. Its implications are considerable. Members who have spoken have been extremely concerned and pertinent. It is an area which should concern every Deputy and the public. We are a more concerned race than any other race in the world regarding aid for underdeveloped countries. We have that missionary zeal, the willingness to help the less fortunate. I presume that is because of our historical background.

I find it very sad when I travel abroad to see the deprivation and poverty in what should be relatively wealthy countries. I reflect on how well off we are in this country in comparison, although from our day to day experiences with the public one might not think so. We are one of the top 30 countries in the world as far as standards of living are concerned. The figure of £6.5 billion per year which the Minister mentioned in his statement today may sound quite significant but it entails spending in 70 countries.

If £6.5 billion is divided among 70 countries, each country receives an amount somewhat less than £100 million. Some of these countries are quite large with far greater populations than Ireland. The Minister mentioned China, which has a population in the region of 1,100 million people. Over a four year period, we will receive £8 billion from the European Community in Structural Funds which is approximately $12 billion dollars. The comparison is stark as our assistance from the EC is significantly greater than the small amount which these people are getting.

Three or four years ago, when the Iron Curtain came down and there was a programme of democratisation in central and eastern Europe, we assumed there would be extra money available for aid of this kind because the nuclear race and the arms programmes would be scaled down, if not abandoned. Unfortunately, we have not seen the effects of the additional money which should have accrued to the economies of all the countries concerned, particularly the principal countries.

If the arms and nuclear programmes have been dismantled and there is extra money, where has it gone? Why have these underdeveloped, poverty stricken countries not benefited to a significant degree? If the money has been available — and I doubt if it is — we have seen no evidence of it. The arms programmes have been scaled down to some degree. Why have we not seen any material benefit as a result?

I noticed a most disturbing development during the last week. Not only are some of the countries included in the 70 supported by the International Development Association not spending money to help the underprivileged and the poor, they are enlarging their arsenals and increasing armament activities. I refer specifically to the nuclear testing carried out this week in China, one of the countries listed here as being eligible for assistance.

Despite the fall of the Iron Curtain, North Korea has a proliferation of armaments and has continued developing the atomic bomb. How can these people be allowed do this without action on the part of the United Nations? The United Nations acts in conjunction with the World Bank to which this association is affiliated. There should be co-ordination but it does not seem to exist. There seems to be a rollover year after year. In the current year we are rolling over the contribution of £13 million from last year, as we did in previous years. I do not know how far back this goes.

There should be a co-ordinated programme to ensure that every country is doing its best to assist starving and underprivileged people. Assistance cannot be given in isolation. It must be ensured that spending money on nuclear programmes and the developments of last week do not take place side by side as one defeats the purpose of the other. I hope the Minister takes this on board.

The Minister for Finance introduced the Bill but the Minister for Foreign Affairs should also be involved because the two areas cannot be separated. I do not intend any offence to the Minister; I think he understands the point I am making. We are talking about international co-operation and action by the United Nations to deal with people who are spending money on mechanisms of destruction and death. These people are promoting destruction and causing untold misery, they spend money on developing weapons while people in their country are starving. This is taking place in a considerable number of countries.

Currently 70 countries are aided under the scheme and the number will increase; more and more countries will be seeking aid from the International Development Association. The collapse of communism, while it filled people with joy, resulted in a serious drop in living standards in those countries in central and eastern Europe. In future we will not just be concerned with Asian and African countries, we will also be speaking of countries in central and eastern Europe.

I visited some of these countries recently and saw incredible poverty; living standards have dropped considerably. I wonder if we have fully considered the impact of the collapse of communism. It has not led to a rise in living standards as we thought it would; it has resulted in a serious drop in living standards. Countries which could have been classified as Second World countries — for want of a better description— have now very definitely become Third World countries. This is a need for an expansion in the number of countries deserving aid. It is a sad story.

I would like to see an analysis of the problem. As I said at the outset, if the Irish do not do it, other countries will not do it because we give the lead in the area of humanitarian activities. If we cannot carry out a study to find out why there has been a collapse in living standards, nobody else will do it. We should be one of the countries most involved in doing that study.

I travelled to Romania twice recently and I was appalled to see the poverty in a country which is potentially very rich. It has the finest land in Europe and significant oil resources. Since Ceausescu was deposed, the collapse of the communist system and the replacement of it by a democratic system of sorts, the standard of living in that country has decreased and the situation is much worse than it was four or five years ago. This is also the case in Hungary. They say they are glad to have democracy but that they are far worse off than under communism.

We have to face the fact that the list of 70 countries in need of aid from the International Development Association will increase. I would like to see a study carried out as to the underlying reasons standards of living have droppped so much. A debate such as this should not take place in isolation year in, year out. We are entitled to a deeper study resulting in a greater understanding of the problems involved because nobody — and I have asked a number of highly placed individuals in Europe and at home — has been able to give me a logical explanation as to why living standards collapsed when democracy took over from communism. I, more than most Members of this House, berated the communist system for many years.

There is a real problem and it is no longer confined to Africa, Asia and parts of the Middle East: it is in places much nearer to home. There is a strong possibility that the terrible war in Yugoslavia will be repeated in other countries in central and eastern Europe because people are poverty stricken, they will look for scapegoats and there will be strife. Such an occurrence will cause pain and will probably affect us considerably as time goes on. The problem is not confined to the three continents of the Americas, Africa and Asia; Europe itself has a major problem which is growing daily.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I was pleased that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs made a proposal to increase, over a committed period, our official contribution towards development needs in the poorer regions of the world. No matter what our constraints are, the amount of money we officially contribute to alleviate world hunger is relatively small and we should work towards the agreed UN target over a fixed period and stick to that. Regardless of what cuts are made in the future this is one area — world hunger and world development — where we should try to meet the commitment and pursue the target relentlessly. I am at one with the Government in that policy.

In various agencies, particularly in the United Nations, much money is spent on administration. This gives rise to the conviction on the part of many observers that it is spent lavishly and unnecessarily on a bureaucracy which flatters itself by the salaries it awards its members. We regularly refer to the salaries the EC Commissioners receive but in the higher echelons of some of these organisations the salaries officials pay themselves are quite extraordinary. In United Nations' organisations in particular, there does not appear to be a structure on the part of Governments — let alone Parliaments — to oversee the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the administration of these funds.

Somehow that issue must be put on the agenda. We must say to the people who have become fat cats in these organisations — which are supposed to be humanitarian — that the organisations were not created to provide them with large salaries, pensions and first class travel around the world. I read with shock recently that some officials in UN offices had been paid very large salaries although they did no work. Some people had not even gone to their desks for periods of time. I do not know whether this was due to people competing with each other for job status or for some other reason but it is totally unacceptable.

We must ensure that the money we vote for organisations like this is used by them to benefit the people for whom it was intended and not used in administration. Now that can happen in any administration — it does not matter who is in Government — unless Parliament constantly prods the Government of the day who in turn, constantly prods the bureaucracy. We must be constantly vigilant in that regard. When such prodding takes place at one, two or three removes through the United Nations and other such organisations, I do not believe for one minute that there is a value for money audit, based on efficiency, economy and effectiveness.

What is a value for money audit? Take a polio vaccination scheme and apply the three Es: economy is buying the unit of vaccine at the lowest price consistent with quality; there is efficiency if that unit contains three shots and effectiveness is achieved when the incidence of polio is reduced. Similarly in relation to these development funds we should ask whether we get economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Do we provide the structures to reduce poverty or for people to develop or to feed themselves? Does the money get through to the people who need it? There is a conviction among many people that much of this money is consumed in overheads and administration.

We are voting an amount of £13 million — a relatively small amount of money given the annual budget but we will vote other moneys under other headings — and we have given a commitment, which I welcome, to increase our contribution. I strongly support the Government's policy on this and there is a proposal to draw up a plan to increase our contribution. My concern is not just about our contribution, it also relates to the contributions of other governments, that the contributions get through to their intended recipients. In that regard some of the larger organisations are out of control and somehow the Minister, at meetings of the World Bank or other international agencies, must put that on the agenda. You may say that ours is a small country and that making this point will not have an effect but it will because if other Ministers hear our Minister saying it, they may say that the same comment was made in their parliaments and something may be done to redress the problem.

If we vote £13 million for international development associations we want it to get to its intended destination. I hope the Minister finds an opportunity to raise this point to ensure that the moneys do not go to financing expense accounts for overpaid bureaucrats in the United Nations or other major organisations.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

I wish to express my appreciation for the constructive debate this afternoon. It reflects the view of the House that we must continue to contribute to developing countries. A number of Deputies made comments or asked questions which I will endeavour to answer in the time allotted to me.

Deputies Connor, Cox and Ryan raised questions about the Third World debt crisis and I share many of their concerns. I am particularly concerned about the most recent statement by Oxfam that the burden of debt carried by the poorest countries is a major impediment to growth and prevents them undertaking programmes of policy initiatives to sustain their development. I am also conscious that the structural adjustment programmes which many developing countries have undertaken often entail severe hardship. We have constantly argued, as a member of international financial institutions, that the poorest sectors of society must be protected from the harsh economic and social impact of adjustment programmes. We made that point strongly in Washington at the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF last week when we called for a debt relief package for the poorest regions in line with the Trinidad terms. This proposal calls for the write-off of debt of low income developing countries.

In reply to questions raised by Deputies Connor and Cox, my view was shared by other governors, particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, with the UK Government, has taken an interest in this matter. The World Bank is a large institution involving 200 countries. We followed the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which are in line with views expressed by Deputies earlier, and put forward a strong case at the annual meetings. We are in a good position to make such a strong case because of our historical position and, in spite of Ireland being a small country, a large number of Irish people are involved in frontline relief agencies in all parts of the world.

Deputy Connor spoke at length of his recent visit to and knowledge of Africa. I had an opportunity recently to meet some of the people involved in relief work in Kenya, the number of Irish people involved in so many centres is impressive. However, the problem remains that much of the debt is outside the remit of the World Bank. Much of the money is owed to governments and commercial banks and I hope this issue will be addressed this year given the dire straits in which these countries find themselves. I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking to the managing director of the IMF, Mr. Camdessus at some length at the annual meeting and I know he shares the view that the debt relief, in some cases, must be up to 75 per cent. As a number of Deputies stated a successful Uruguay Round is essential to the developing world.

Deputies referred to the appalling conditions in the Third World, I share their concerns as the statistics are staggering. Sometimes, the cruel human daily reality facing those living in the poorest countries of the world is premature death, ill health, illiteracy, hunger and living in a degraded environment. Last week the briefing notes I studied before attending the World Bank sessions revealed how appalling those conditions are. Deputy Deasy gave us an insight into the position in Romania. When one reads of such appalling conditions in so many countries one would almost believe that we live in Utopia. Given the reality and the growing population in the world, the fight against poverty is a global responsibility. To help achieve this goal a suitable vehicle is needed in which to channel assistance to the poor. The International Development Association of the World Bank is such a vehicle, it mobilises support from the richer countries and uses the financial contributions, including our own, to alleviate the plight of the poor. In regard to IDA Ten, IDA can lend £18 billion to the poorest countries to deal with some of their problems. I agree it is not enough, but it is a significant sum and the provision of such funds is a move in the right direction.

Deputies Eoin Ryan and Connor raised concerns about the plight of people living in the areas of sub-Saharan Africa about which I spoke at some length at the World Bank annual meeting. Those concerns are well founded and reflect our traditional strong ties with this area. It should be noted that in the course of negotiations for the replenishment of the IDA's funds, it was agreed that resources allocated to areas of sub-Saharan Africa would be maintained at approximately 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the total. I will continue to voice our national concern as expressed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs about the plight of those living in that region of Africa.

Deputies asked about Ireland's ODA proposals, this is a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. In line with the commitment in the Programme for Partnership Government, our ODA target of 0.2 per cent of GNP for 1993 was achieved, which represents a significant real increase on the 1992 figure of 0.16 per cent of GNP, which is approximately £28 million. It is our intention to maintain steady progress in the years ahead towards the UN goal of contributing 0.7 per cent of GNP to ODA.

Deputy Connor asked about the proposed contribution to the IDA, it will be regarded as part of the ODA contribution. The increased resources made available to Ireland's aid programme will enable us to launch new programmes in the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Such programmes will be targeted at the poorest districts and regions, including urban areas. High priority will be given to meeting the basic needs of providing education, health, water and sanitation.

Deputies Connor and De Rossa referred to the closed nature of the bank and its failure to make various documents public. I am aware that the bank's current directive on disclosure of information stated that there is a presumption in favour of disclosure outside and within the bank in the absence of a compelling reason not to disclose information. I am aware the bank recognises and supports the fundamental importance of accountability and transparency in the development process. Deputy Gay Mitchell made this point about organisations generally, but it is a point we will take up in the future. The bank should be more open, release bank documents and encourage borrower governments to release as much information as possible on bank projects and programmes to facilitate increased local participation in decision making. The bank has sought external comments on its work in the belief that outside views help to improve the quality of the bank's products.

The directive on disclosure of information was endorsed by the board of directors in 1989. It states that it is the bank's policy to be open about its activities and to seek opportunities to explain its work to the widest possible audience. We must also bear in mind that the bank's relationship of trust with its borrowers rests on the institution's ability to maintain the confidentiality of certain types of information and I am sure Deputies respect that position. There are also practical reasons access to the bank's documents cannot be unlimited. The bank put forward the argument that no institution could conduct its business if every draft and document are released, but it favours as much openness as possible and I will relay the views of this House on that matter at every opportunity.

I agree with Deputies Connor and Dukes that local participation should be increased and Deputy Eoin Ryan referred to employing local consultants instead of not always relying on experts from industrialised countries.

Deputy Dukes made an interesting contribution about development and the model followed by the World Bank. Deputy Gallagher also made a similar point. No matter what model one subscribes to, primary education and primary health care, including nutrition have to be dealt with.

Deputy Dukes also voiced concern about environmental matters. In the developing world the poorest people tend to suffer most from environmental problems. I am aware of problems in the past with certain World Bank/IDA projects. Now the World Bank shares our objective of sustainable development and not a form of development which is environmentally unsound and which sometimes threatens the future of the world.

The IDA's role is to achieve a balanced sustainable development. It has moved to integrate environmental considerations into its work whether in carrying forward traditional project lending, designing special environmental projects or discussing national policies with borrowing countries. I am informed that in the past three years the IDA has provided $2.5 billion for environmental projects and these have helped to protect crucial natural resources such as forests, fish, water, wildlife and soil in the poorest countries. Other projects are helping to improve urban environments by providing clear water and sanitation services and helping to reduce air pollution. In addition the IDA is working to see that the NGOs and the local groups are given a role in the design and implementation of projects. These actions represent a commitment to the environment and to sustainable development. I look forward to tangible results. Like Deputy Dukes, I will monitor how the world bank achieves these aims.

Deputy Gallagher referred to World Bank lending being linked to democracy and I understand the point he was making. The IDA's articles of association approved by this House in 1960 state that the IDA shall not be influenced in its decisions by the political character of the member and that only economic considerations shall be relevant. I am sure many donor countries will have differing opinions on the merits of lending to some countries. I like to know that the IDA funds are helping poor people irrespective of political concerns. A suffering hungry child does not have any political responsibility.

Deputy Upton talked about health care and the problems of Africa. I am happy that health issues, especially women's health issues, are a priority for the IDA. Studies show that cultural factors are loaded against women. The IDA closely monitors non-development expenditure, especially military spending. Deputy Deasy also talked about military expenditure and I agree that it is wasteful. I operate in close co-operation with the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and I agree that this matter should be of concern to both of us. The Minister of State intended to take part in this debate but unfortunately he is indisposed.

Some of the poorer countries in Eastern Europe have already become eligible for IDA funding and more will follow.

I take Deputy Gay Mitchell's point about administrative costs. This is a difficult area which also involves administrative costs in the banks involved in setting up the organisation. I admit that there are problems and I have voiced my concern about rising payrolls in the international financial institutions. I will continue to make the point. Travel expenses in these agencies are always a major source of contention.

This has been a supportive debate on the role of the IDA and its funds. To finish on a positive note, we have a very proud record in the developing bank and we will continue to be firm supporters of the Bretton Woods institutions. They are not perfect but they are a major positive force in the developing world in helping to alleviate poverty. The IDA is a firm favourite of the Irish Government and it has been favoured by successive governments over 30 years. It helps the poorest countries. In our aid programme we are conscious of the need to create conditions for sustainable development. We pay particular attention to the role of women as well as to environmental matters.

All of these aspects are part of the IDA development plans. Its mandate has always been to channel assistance to low income countries for development. The IDA is the largest single source of multilateral concessional funds. Its annual disbursement of around $4 billion is about 30 per cent of non-concessional multilateral disbursements or 12 per cent of official development assistance. The association also helps to mobilise and coordinate aid for other multilateral organisations and donor countries. Its involvement is a catalyst for other bilateral aid donors and regional development banks to participate in improving assistance. Over the years it has provided capital for investment in all sectors of economic activity. In the sixties it financed mainly infrastructural projects. It helped to finance irrigation and drainage projects in India and Pakistan where greater agricultural output was needed to keep pace with the growing population. The association also supported the construction of highways and roads in Latin America. It financed municipal water supply schemes in Amman and helped build power plants and ports in other developing countries. During the eighties it placed far greater emphasis on economic and institutional reform. We are confident that in the nineties it will sharpen its focus on reducing poverty and in increasing its effectiveness.

I will bear in mind the points made and I thank Deputies for their co-operation in allowing this Bill to pass speedily.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand that the House has agreed to take the Committee and remaining Stages of this Bill now.